On 11/30/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006(a)dpbsmith.com> wrote:
What I meant is that _in Wikipedia,_ uncited material
is not high-
quality material.
What do you mean by "high quality"?
_In Wikipedia,_ that's indeed by definition, and
the "definition" in
question is Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
You seem to mean "desirable". As opposed to "inherently worthwhile".
Does a random visitor care whether we think the material is desirable
or not?
Wikipedia is different, because Wikipedia does not
select or judge
the competence or credentials of its editors.
And it relies on its readers to form their own opinions about the
accuracy of its articles. And providing sources helps that process.
But it is not true that the absence of sources renders a given page
"low quality".
Steve